With the referendum result now six months ago it is clear that both the investment and occupational markets in central London have started to accept that Brexit is more of a process than an event. This has resulted in a cautious return of confidence, combined with the acceptance that decision-making has to continue.
There are undoubtedly challenges ahead, particularly for the occupational markets, but the short-term outlook for the market is more connected to its late cycle characteristics than the changes that may or may not occur due to Britain leaving the EU in 2019.
Macro-economic background
The major London-specific debate of the last six months has been around the possible impact of a loss of passporting agreements for financial services and what this might mean for London's position as Europe's financial centre.
Our view is that this debate has been clouded by a significant degree of posturing, with a number of businesses and commentators over-emphasising the risks of large numbers of jobs needing to be moved to other locations in the EU. Their rationale for this is fairly obvious, a desire to ensure that the topic of trade agreements is front and centre in the UK government's negotiations with the EU. This noise has been further amplified by the leaders of a variety of European cities setting out their stalls as to why their city is the obvious successor to London's crown.
For example, the head of the Association of German Banks has urged the German government to do more to lure businesses away from London by relaxing both tax regimes and labour laws to make Germany as flexible as London. In our opinion, the factors that have made London such a popular location are unlikely to be changed at a local or even a regional level in the EU. This leaves CEOs of London-based businesses facing the simple fact that on employment costs alone France and Germany are 30%-40% more expensive than the UK (Graph 1). By the time you have addressed the lack of flexibility in many European labour markets these two factors alone mean that the operating costs in London in a post Brexit world will have to rise by at least 40% to make a significant relocation away from London a sensible financial decision for many businesses.
Some property market commentators have suggested that another barrier to such moves would be the lack of office space in competing European cities. However, given the long decision-making time scales that are likely to be involved in such moves, we would suggest that suitable space could be delivered in both Paris and Frankfurt if there was evident demand. A more significant barrier to entry for London-based businesses will be the size of the local labour market in other European cities. For example, while Finance and Insurance employment in London totals around 400,000 people, the next biggest European city (Paris) has less than 250,000 workers in its own Finance and Insurance sector.
Of course the question of relocation of jobs might not only be one facing Finance employers. If the barriers to cross-border trade (as well as the ability to hire non-domestic workers) become more significant in London, then this will affect many more business sectors than just Finance, and some of the these sectors (such as TMT) have been much more active players in the London office market than Finance in the years since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).
So, with clarity on passporting of financial services and other matters unlikely to emerge for several years, we have not dramatically revised down our forecasts for employment in London. Indeed, even before the EU referendum these forecasts were based around the view that Financial Services employment in London was likely to remain static for the foreseeable future.